Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri. Sewana Uma Maheswara Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 15 September, 2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.P.No.6545 of 2021
ORDER:
The petitioner had filed an application on 21.02.2009 for grant of a
quarry lease for colour granite over an extent of 10 hectares of land in
Sy.No.1 of Sontinuru Village, Nandigam Mandal, Srikakulam District.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the application filed by him
was being processed, when respondents 5 and 6 sought to take over the
application and obtain the quarry lease in the name of a firm, in which
they are partners, forcibly. The petitioner contends that the 5th
respondent filed W.P.No.19131 of 2020 before this Court seeking a
direction to the official respondents to consider the application of the
petitioner as a joint application of the 5th respondent partnership firm and
this Court by an order dated 20.10.2020 had directed the respondent 2 to
4 therein, (who are the official respondents herein) to consider and pass
appropriate orders on the representations submitted by the partnership
firm of the 5th respondents on 03.04.2020, 06.07.2020 and 20.08.2020,
by following due process of law, in the light of the existing Rules, within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
3. The petitioner contends that the 2nd respondent, with a view
to help respondents 5 and 6, has issued the impugned proceedings dated
23.01.2020 to the 4th respondent, directing the 4th respondent to process
the applications filed by the petitioner in the name of the 5th respondent in
compliance with the Hon'ble High Court orders.
4. Sri C. Venkaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits
that the impugned order is not in accordance with the directions of this
Court dated 20.10.2020 and the said order requires to be set aside.
2 RRR,J
W.P.No.6545 of 2021
5. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
respondents 5 and 6, on the basis of the counter affidavits filed, would
submit that the application of the petitioner had remained dormant at a
particular stage and the petitioner was not even able to pay the amounts
required to be paid for processing the application. At that stage, it was the
6th respondent, who had taken steps for keeping the application alive by
remitting necessary funds. He further submits that there was an
agreement between the petitioner and the 6th respondent and other
persons, who had all come together to form the 5th respondent firm,
which was registered on 25.06.2018. He submits that in pursuance of the
said agreement, the petitioner had also filed notarised affidavit admitting
these facts and a bank account had also been opened for the purpose of
carrying the business of the 5th respondent firm. Sri P. Veera Reddy,
leaned Senior Counsel also pointed out to the fact that the petitioner and
his two sons are partners among the 7 partners in the 5th respondent firm.
6. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel would submit
that it is on account of this arrangement that the 5th respondent firm had
made representations dated 03.04.2020, 06.07.2020 and 20.08.2020
requesting that the application filed by the petitioner be treated as the
application of the 5th respondent. As these representations were not being
considered, the 5th respondent had approached this Court by way of
W.P.No.19131 of 2020, which had been disposed of in the manner set out
above.
7. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel would submit
that the petitioner having realised the value of the quarry area and having
obtained the benefits from the 6th respondent has now turned around and
3 RRR,J
W.P.No.6545 of 2021
is seeking to wriggle out of his commitments contending that all the
documents signed by him were fabricated and obtained by coercion.
8. Having heard both sides, it is clear that the controversy, for
the present, revolves around the understanding of the official respondents
relating to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.19131 of 2020.
9. A perusal of the said judgment would show that the
direction given by this Court to respondents 2 and 3 was to consider and
pass orders on the representations of the 5th respondent after hearing
both sides.
10. In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of
clarifying that the impugned proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent to
the 4th respondent shall be understood to mean that the 4th respondent
shall dispose of the representations of the 5th respondent dated
03.04.2020, 06.07.2020 and 20.08.2020, in accordance with law, after
hearing both the petitioner herein and respondents 5 and 6. It is further
made clear that the scope of the enquiry before the 4th respondent is on
the question of whether the application filed by the petitioner should be
treated as an application filed by the 5th respondent partnership firm or
not. This exercise shall be concluded by the 4 th respondent within a period
of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There
shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
15th September, 2022
Js.
4 RRR,J
W.P.No.6545 of 2021
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.P.No.6545 of 2021
15th September, 2022
Js.
